Stop sign for sidewalk

[jamess]

Is this sign legal? It makes zero sense to me.

California. This is a residential neighborhood. There is a T-intersection with no control for the roadway (presumably the terminating street is yield control). As far as I know, drivers are required to stop for crosswalk users, and not the other way around.

[kalvado]

I would think this is not enforceable. However, there are usually legal provisions for pedestrians not to enter the path of a vehicle when it would be impractical to stop (aka don't jump on the road right in front of a moving car)
So it makes perfect sense and perfectly legal to require pedestrians to lift their eyes off iPhone screen  and look on the road before crossing. If it takes such a sigh to achieve that - so be it, it should work

[kphoger]

It's possible the stop sign controls bicycles rather than pedestrians, especially considering the width of that sidewalk.

[Brandon]

It's quite common around here for bicycle trails.
https://goo.gl/maps/MUb3r37eJvG2
https://goo.gl/maps/iDbvpk2D8zK2
And yes, it is enforceable for bicycles.

[Eth]

I'm reminded of this example near me, which seems just plain weird.

[SectorZ]

I concur with others that it is being treated as a bicycle lane as much as a sidewalk. Every multi-use trail in Massachusetts has a stop sign at the road crossing, with the town of Chelmsford demanding cyclists dismount and walk across (we can debate that dubious legality down the road).

[cjw2001]

Pretty normal here for trails

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.014263,-86.1366713,3a,75y,0.55h,86.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snQNE7W1rOC4XkemFaRx2og!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0138318,-86.1366626,3a,75y,18.58h,74.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQs9oUO3DswtvEo1ICM4xug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.021707,-86.1367061,3a,88.4y,146.65h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKkwXF86-GKFEymy72TGy-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[roadfro]

The width definitely looks more like a multi-use trail than a typical sidewalk. And as others have said, it's not unusual to see stop signs when a trail intersects a roadway. It's common practice on all the trails I've seen in the Vegas area and most of the ones around Reno.

[jamess]

I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?

Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?

[jeffandnicole]

At low-volume, low-speed intersections, it's not necessary for there to be signed controls at intersections.

[1995hoo]

I can think of some sidewalks in DC that have stop signs. I've never seen a single cyclist obey the signs, though. This Street View image is from August 2018. See if you can identify the signage errors. (The National Park Service posted the signs, rather than the District of Columbia.)

[kalvado]

I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?

Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?

As far as I can tell, there is no stop sign, so no duty to stop. Some mutual courtesy yield is usually enough for within neighbourhood intersections with traffic of tens vehicles per day.
Besides, my impression is that there is no real road going straight where camera points, more like a dead end cul-de-sac.

[US71]

I see them on bike trails all the time, many of which double as sidewalks/hiking trails.

[kphoger]

I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?

Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?

Traffic on the terminating street is typically bound by law to yield, not necessarily to stop.  I just verified that this is indeed the case in California:

Chapter 4.  Right-of-Way

21800.

(b) (1) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting continuing highway.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "terminating highway"  means a highway which intersects, but does not continue beyond the intersection, with another highway which does continue beyond the intersection.

[jamess]

I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?

Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?

Traffic on the terminating street is typically bound by law to yield, not necessarily to stop.  I just verified that this is indeed the case in California:

Chapter 4.  Right-of-Way

21800.

(b) (1) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting continuing highway.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "terminating highway"  means a highway which intersects, but does not continue beyond the intersection, with another highway which does continue beyond the intersection.

So why is the "intersecting continuing highway" shown a stop sign?

Aren't there standards that must be met to install a stop sign?

[jakeroot]

I assume trail stop signs must be somewhat enforceable. Well, at least in Washington, as Seattle has at least one four-way stop with a trail: http://bit.ly/2D0BnhC -- it can be a little awkward when several cyclists or pedestrians arrive at the same time.

[ErmineNotyours]

I can think of some sidewalks in DC that have stop signs. I've never seen a single cyclist obey the signs, though. This Street View image is from August 2018. See if you can identify the signage errors. (The National Park Service posted the signs, rather than the District of Columbia.)

I noticed that on my 2006 trip to DC: "State law, vehicles must yield to pedestrians."  Um, DC isn't a state.

I also noticed the district motto on the license plates: "Taxation without representation."  I thought the slogan was "No taxation without representation."  Oh, this is their snarky comment on their political situation, made instead of actually changing things.

[1995hoo]

"State Law"  is one of the errors. There's another.

[Brandon]

I assume trail stop signs must be somewhat enforceable. Well, at least in Washington, as Seattle has at least one four-way stop with a trail: http://bit.ly/2D0BnhC -- it can be a little awkward when several cyclists or pedestrians arrive at the same time.

They should take their turns, as if driving in a vehicle.  Of course, I'd expect folks out there to actually obey it while cycling.  I was utterly stunned by the law-abiding behavior of Washington and Oregon bicyclists.  In Chicago, it's the wild wild west and no cyclist obeys any signage.  Here, they'd just ignore the stop signs and blow right through them, pedestrians be damned.

[Brandon]

"State Law"  is one of the errors. There's another.

Doesn't DC require the use of "stop" instead of "yield" on these signs?

[1995hoo]

"State Law"  is one of the errors. There's another.

Doesn't DC require the use of "stop" instead of "yield" on these signs?

Correct!

[kphoger]

I think it makes sense at a mid-block crossing, but doesnt the signage break the norms at a t-intersection?

Through traffic has the right of way. Why does the sign say "cross traffic does not stop" when that is their duty?

Traffic on the terminating street is typically bound by law to yield, not necessarily to stop.  I just verified that this is indeed the case in California:

Chapter 4.  Right-of-Way

21800.

(b) (1) When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on his or her immediate right, except that the driver of any vehicle on a terminating highway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle on the intersecting continuing highway.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "terminating highway"  means a highway which intersects, but does not continue beyond the intersection, with another highway which does continue beyond the intersection.

So why is the "intersecting continuing highway" shown a stop sign?

I looked at the OP photo again, and I don't see a stop sign on the intersecting continuing highway.  There's a stop sign on path, but not the road next to it.  The statute I cited was to point out that cross-traffic is not required to stop in the absence of signs, merely to yield–and that "cross traffic does not stop" could technically be a correct interpretation of the intersection.

Aren't there standards that must be met to install a stop sign?

meh.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Honestly, stop signs for bicycles are unnecessary in all but the most constrained conditions. A bicycle has much better visibility and stopping distance than a car, and coming to a full stop on a bike is an undue annoyance. The standard for MUPs should have been yield signs, but as with a lot of misguided MUTCD additions^{HAWK beacons} it seems we've gone too far using an inferior treatment to go back and change it.

[Brandon]

Honestly, stop signs for bicycles are unnecessary in all but the most constrained conditions. A bicycle has much better visibility and stopping distance than a car, and coming to a full stop on a bike is an undue annoyance. The standard for MUPs should have been yield signs, but as with a lot of misguided MUTCD additions^{HAWK beacons} it seems we've gone too far using an inferior treatment to go back and change it.

An annoyance?  Is it really all that hard to put your feet down on the ground and stop?  Or are you just too lazy to do so?

[jamess]

Honestly, stop signs for bicycles are unnecessary in all but the most constrained conditions. A bicycle has much better visibility and stopping distance than a car, and coming to a full stop on a bike is an undue annoyance. The standard for MUPs should have been yield signs, but as with a lot of misguided MUTCD additions^{HAWK beacons} it seems we've gone too far using an inferior treatment to go back and change it.

An annoyance?  Is it really all that hard to put your feet down on the ground and stop?  Or are you just too lazy to do so?

It certainly requires more work than doing so in a car.

Accelerating on a bike costs physical energy. Doing so in a car requires a slight shifting of a foot.